Find a Lawyer

HAMEEDA SHAMIM versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI SOUTH, KARACHI

Specific Relief Act 1877 Sections 8, 39, 42 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 11, 35 A&O VII, R11 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 2020 Homeless Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), sections 10 and 20 (3), suits for declaration, possession, order and document cancellation, judicial decision were immediately targeted and the defendant's claim was timely by association agreement. Was based on 1967, whereby the plaintiff (ZH), in obtaining the allotment of property in the Leto Certificate property, surrendered its favor when, earlier, the High Court approved the Constitution Petition dated 14 12 1965. By order the Settlement Authority was directed to dispose of the property through it. A Public Auction Letter Patent Appeal was filed against the High Court order, in which the plaintiff and the plaintiff (ZH) also joined as party, dismissing the observation that the settlement authority had passed such order of the High Court. Cannot process variable. It was ordered to put the property in a public auction, the plaintiff filed a civil petition challenging the order passed in the High Court of Appeal, which was moved by the plaintiff in section 20 of the Homeless Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation). 3) The revision request filed under was dismissed. ) Act, 1958 was rejected then the plaintiff filed a constitutional petition, but the same was dismissed and the plaintiff filed a civil petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. The plaintiff's position was that upon the approval of the order dated 14 12 1965 by the High Court, the property was available and may be subject to settlement rules. female advocates from Hayatabad lawyer